Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed

A network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible.

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

"I call it the climate-change counter movement," study author Robert Brulle, who published his results in the journal Climatic Change, told the Guardian. "It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort."

His work, which is focused on the United States, shows how a network of 91 think tanks and industry groups are primarily responsible for conservative opposition to climate policy. Almost 80 percent of these groups are registered as charitable organizations for tax purposes and collectively received more than seven billion dollars between 2003 and 2010.

However, Brulle admitted that tracing the funding back to its original sources was difficult, as around three-quarters of the money has been routed through trusts that assure anonymity to their donors.

While it was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said: "This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power."

He added: "They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy."

618 Reader Comments

In a few years ARS is going to look like a gullible buffoon when all the corruption and political twisting in the climate change movement is exposed.

Why would that be? Ars' science section seems to publish mostly stories about scientific papers published in reputable peer reviewed journals. I presume that if there were to be such papers that somehow refuted the science in support of climate change then Ars would write stories about those too. Perhaps you could point out[1] some peer reviewed papers that refute aspects of currently understood climate science[2], but as is, I am assuming that because neither you nor any of the other skeptics posting here have done so that there probably really aren't very many - if any at all.

[1] Just asserting that they exist, without at least some specifics, is just a whole lot of nothing. How many times have we seen something like:

Quote:

To put it simply there is no credible evidence yet that human caused climate change is happening. The fact is many natural phenomena are at play here and it isn't clear at all what proportion man kinds influence is. In a nut shell too much junk science or people getting carried away with observations to minute to base policy on.

Just empty assertions backed by absolutely nothing. And in this case, and picking a link at random, wrong.

[2] And you do have to read the whole paper and not just the title or abstract - there really is a reason that researchers write entire papers and not just titles and abstracts. I guess I can't really speak for other disciplines, but at least in mine we aren't paid by the word or anything.

You disprove a graph by tilting it and adding your own lines. Those lines still show the same trends because they still represent the same values over time. You could turn the whole thing upside down, and it still woudln't change the meaning in any way.

The idea is that the "real" uncorrected data looks like the graph of the corrected data when it is tilted down about 30 degrees. There is no justification for that argument in the report. You would need a systematic error that constantly adjusted all the data exactly the right way to give a constant, monotonic distortion. That's not what's happening, even in their version of events. So tilting the graph is still wrong. Fact-checking the original claims shows that this idea is completely false anyway. The original data does actually show a trend where they say it doesn't, it isn't flat. Dr. Morner (who originated the claim and first did the graph-tilting years ago) has gone loco in the coco and is embarrassing himself, while the SPPI and Monckton don't know enough to see how bug-fuck crazy he is. Not surprising at all, considering Monckton himself is probably nuts, and the SPPI is one of those think-tanks that gets money from fossil fuels companies (and presumably denialist billionaires) to publish whatever crap they can find to try and deny AGW. In fact, it showed up as one of the organizations examined in this study (Supplementary Materials).

You disprove a graph by tilting it and adding your own lines. Those lines still show the same trends because they still represent the same values over time. You could turn the whole thing upside down, and it still woudln't change the meaning in any way.

Wheels, I think you're misunderstanding that image: it's not an analysis of the sea-level data, and I'm not sure it really claim to be. Rather, it's an info-graphic portraying just how blatantly the Global Warming propaganda machine cooks the data in promulgating the Big Lie that Climate Change is anything to be concerned about.

It's rather effective; it tells a simple. easily understood story in just one picture. I'd be applauding it -- if it had anything to do with reality.

Again, the trends remain exactly the same. If they wanted to show blatant distortions of data, they should have put an overlay with their own data. Tilting it just makes it look like someone is experimenting with perspective shifts in Visio.

You disprove a graph by tilting it and adding your own lines. Those lines still show the same trends because they still represent the same values over time. You could turn the whole thing upside down, and it still woudln't change the meaning in any way.

The idea is that the "real" uncorrected data looks like the graph of the corrected data when it is tilted down about 30 degrees. There is no justification for that argument in the report. You would need a systematic error that constantly adjusted all the data exactly the right way to give a constant, monotonic distortion. That's not what's happening, even in their version of events. So tilting the graph is still wrong. Fact-checking the original claims shows that this idea is completely false anyway. The original data does actually show a trend where they say it doesn't, it isn't flat.

That's all fine, and perhaps it was addressed in the link, but your post made it seem as if they were trying to trick people merely by rotating a graph so that the trendlines looked flat to people who are too stupid to notice that the axes were tilted, yet that's not what they did.

From what you are saying they are actually making unsubstantiated and/or disproven claims about the nature of the "correction" applied to a set of data and about the "uncorrected' trendlines of that same set of data. They then attempt to illustrate those claims by rotating the graph.

The difference between the two is that in reality, they have erred in their interpretation of the "uncorrected" data instead of being so obtuse that they think they can trick people into believing a known falsehood by rotating a graph so that an upward trend looks flat.

What they did was rotate a graph of data points to say that it "matched" the uncorrected data. No matter how you slice it, that's still presenting an image of data points that aren't really there. They doctored the image to try and support their point.

Unfortunately, most of the people concerned about climate change are "greens", and, as such are strongly opposed to nuclear power.

That means that they're doing more damage to the cause of stopping global warming than all the billions spent by shadowy forces. If the only alternative to unchecked global warming is massive economic sacrifices, and a world where the United States is weaker and China is stronger, then I'm not surprised people want obvious proof that it's a real problem - obvious proof of the kind that will only come when it's much to late to avert disaster.

It doesn't help that the first disastrous results of global warming will be famines in places like Indonesia or Thailand, not New York being flooded (that would happen much later) because, sadly, but understandably, the lives of people in far-away places are often thought of as abstractions, while things that affect one's personal life are starkly real.

Nuclear power lets us stop global warming while retaining a prosperous and strong America. Maybe people would have to take trolley buses to work instead of their cars for some additional carbon savings, but people don't need to lose their jobs or even turn down their thermostats (homes can be heated with electricity).

There's also a problem in conflating views of the science with views of the policy prescriptions. One might oppose policy prescriptions that would dramatically increase the cost of energy because you value human prosperity more highly than some increment of ecological stasis. There's no "denial" in that. It's quite reasonable, and the screamers don't have good arguments in the policy area. (You have to climb a mountain just to get people to learn basic economics. I think ignorance of economics is at least as big a problem, and as big a moral failing of the left, as ignorance of evolution is with the conservatives.)

I would find all this more persuasive if you could give some examples of people conflating science with policy, with the aspects of the "screamers" arguments that you find lacking, or even a demonstration of a failure to understand economics on the "left".

Personally, I find the *economic* arguments for action on climate change to be as compelling as the ecological or moral ones. The technology and infrastructure in use in various parts of the world depend in part on the local climate. That includes the capacity of drainage and wastewater systems, disease control programs, indoor climate control mechanisms, etc. So climate change will cause enormous costs as people have to adapt.

In other words, minimizing climate change will cost money. So will adapting to it. And the costs of adaptation are more likely to be unevenly distributed.

Reporting "X is not a concern" which is what I wrote and which you quoted, is not a NULL result. A null result would be "We were unable to determine if X is a concern".

I wouldn't say that's a null result. A hypothesis might be "caffeine increases heart rate in college undergraduates." A test of that hypothesis might be measuring the pulse of undergrads before and after coffee consumption. A null result would be "caffeine consumption does not increase heart rate in undergraduates."

This is what turns people onto being anti-AGW: slavish attempts to shut down discussion are obvious and this naturally makes many people react against it. Climate science is stunningly complicated. It's probable that few or none of the people here have any real background in it. Yet purely factual posts and simple logical statements are not engaged with, but hammered down....And that naturally pushes people to a position of skepticism. At least it pushes anyone who likes thinking for themself.

So, you're saying that many people become anti-AGW because of reasons that have nothing to do with the evidence? BTW, the basics of AGW are quite simple, IMO. Carbon dioxide (and other gases) have a "greenhouse effect", slowing the radiation of heat from the Earth out into space. Because of this, increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause warming of the Earth. Also, some effects of a higher surface temperature, like less snow and ice cover, will result in more efficient absorption of solar radiation, thus providing a positive feedback to the initial warming.

I think that's very simple. I'll grant you that the details of the computational models used to understand and predict just how much warming we can expect from a certain level of greenhouse gases are complicated, as are the details of investigating the past climatological history of the planet. But the fundamentals are pretty easy.

The headline makes it sound like disagreeing with the majority is a crime.

Surely noone can read through the information and reach a different conclusion then the majority..Isn't there a saying that goes something like "do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"

IMO, he evidence that has been assembled in support of the notion of human-induced climate change is so strong (and has been for a while) that there's no excuse for ignorance. Also, I think it unlikely that people and corporations donate tens of millions of dollars out of ignorance. Finally, what seemed most significant about the article to me was that some funders such as Exxon, which were previously open in their support of AGW-skeptics, now appear to be actively hiding that support.

Come on guys, these arguments for censorship are not good arguments, and would not survive first contact with smart, serious engagement. One argument was that it's okay to censor rich people, and that doing such does not count as censorship. That argument will fall apart is at least five different ways. Another argument was that money isn't speech, that stopping someone from paying for a commercial expressing their views is not actually restricting their speech. Come on guys. These are not smart arguments, and Ars is descending to a very low standard of thinking and knowledge.

I'm not sure what I think about various regulations on campaign contributions, etc. However, I think you'd be more persuasive if you actually made some of the arguments that you think are so obvious.

In the Ehrlich-Simmon bet, Paul Ehrlich made a lot of claims under the banner of science. He also saw physical resources as zero-sum, economics as zero-sum, and humans as consumption machines (instead of producers). He bet Simon back then that the prices of all sorts of key minerals/metals would rise over the coming decade (he saw increasing population as breeding scarcity, whereas Simon saw it as breeding abundance.) Simon won the bet -- the world did not collapse into scarcity as a result of population increases, and in fact prices dropped significantly. Gates does a good job of exploring the issues. Environmentalism has a remarkable track record of being wrong about a lot of things, and it would terrible for the world to just snuff out or marginalize dissent from environmentalist doctrine.

A) The singular of data is not "anecdote." Again, as a claimed social scientist you should know this. B) Nobody has been snuffing out or suppressing any dissent from any "doctrine." At least, not on this side. As for environmental issues being snuffed out, marginalized, and suppressed, well, we all remember the Bush administration right?

And if you understood how the carbon cycle works at all, you'd know that cow flatulence does not contribute to CO2 emissions in a meaningful way. For that matter, it's been explained in this thread already. What's important isn't how much, but where it was before.

The CO2 emitted by cows comes from plants, which they eat. The plants get it from the CO2 in the air. So taking the carbon out of the air and putting it back has makes no long term change to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years, reintroducing carbon to the system. This is pretty basis physics, something should be deduced by anyone with an elementary school level understanding of science.

To be fair, the methane emitted by cows is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, though it has a relatively brief half life.

However, to quote the Fine Article:

Quote:

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

So the article in the Independent, which is referencing a report from the UN, is talking about *all* of the greenhouse emissions (and other environmental impacts) associated with cattle ranching, not just cow farts.

The argument that restricting (or banning) spending on speech is not a restriction of freedom of speech is like saying you have freedom of religion but you're not allowed to contribute money to religions, to build churches, etc.; that you have the right to bear arms, but you're not allowed to spend money on guns; and so on and so forth.

All of our freedoms are rights to action, and that action will require the enlistment of physical and other resources, the services of others, etc. -- which will require money. This is not new. Speech has never been free, beyond the street corner stump. It wasn't free when the Constitution was drafted -- printing has always cost money, at times a lot more money than it costs now. In our time, we have far more outlets and means for distributing our speech.

We've always known that respecting freedom of speech requires a prior commitment. It requires that we install firewalls in advance, psychologically speaking. We know, in advance, that our commitment to freedom of speech will be tested. We know, in advance, that we will be biased against speech that conflicts with our views. The need to establish a strong commitment to freedom of speech even when it offends us has been understood for a long time, going to Voltaire's famous quote and beyond. If our commitment to freedom of speech collapses with the following trigger condition [rich people funding opposition to environmentalist policies], then we don't have much of a commitment at all, because that is *nothing*. Our commitment to freedom of speech should be able to endure much harder tests than that. For many leftists, the trigger condition to abandon freedom of speech is just rich people who disagree with the left. When people say that certain speech endangers democracy, they're laying the groundwork for snuffing it out. It's incredible to say that a handful of rich people disagreeing with a bunch of other rich people who fund the Sierra Club, the NRDC, and Greenpeace endanger democracy. Democracy has to mean something more than agreement with the left.

Wheels, are you talking to me? You quoted "anecdote" as though I said something about anecdote, but I didn't. Did you mean to say that the Ehrlich-Simon bet is anecdote, a "singular" of data as you said, and thus not compelling scientific evidence?

The Ehrlich-Simon bet is an example of recurring and well-understood mechanisms -- the power of free people to create abundance, the ways in which humans find more efficient methods of extracting or using resources, the ways in which humans find substitutes for scarce resources, the fact that shortages are characteristic of command economies/socialism, not free economies (see Venezuela's inevitable and mundanely predictable shortages for example -- "hey let's impose price controls...oh no, there's a shortage now, how did that happen?" Jesus.)

The Ehrlich-Simon bet is not a standalone piece of evidence -- it's just an illustration that stands on 150+ years of economic theory and research. Environmentalism is empirically and demonstrably false in many of its core assumptions about human nature and resources. It's strange, but hardcore environmentalists seem to have imported the Christian concept of Original Sin -- they clearly see humans as inherently bad, destructive, unworthy, as sinners needing to repent. Any claim of human destructiveness vis a vis the earth is powerfully appealing to them, and they will likely be biased in favor of accepting it as true. (Libertarians like me are likely to be biased against believing such claims are true, which is why I get into so many arguments with libertarians and conservatives about AGW -- I haven't actually been a skeptic since 2005 when the corrected satellite data came in, although the pause gives me pause...I don't know enough about climate science to be on firm ground.

I'm a social psychologist, and we'll have more data soon on the structure of environmentalist attitudes toward humanity, and whether environmentalism functions as religion at an emotional/psychological level (I think a few people are working on this.) My secular philosopher side will be disappointed if that's the case, since it might imply that even ostensibly secular people need a religion, and that true secularism might be out of reach for most people. There are lots of philosophical and anecdotal, everyday indications that environmentalism is a religion, which is all the more reason to be wary of treating environmentalist views as the only acceptable views.

Wheels, are you talking to me? You quoted "anecdote" as though I said something about anecdote, but I didn't. Did you mean to say that the Ehrlich-Simon bet is anecdote, a "singular" of data as you said, and thus not compelling scientific evidence?

The Ehrlich-Simon bet is an example of recurring and well-understood mechanisms ...

Which you are using to support your idea that "leftists" or "environmentalists" don't get economics.

Quote:

There are lots of philosophical and anecdotal, everyday indications that environmentalism is a religion...

I would expect a social scientist to understand what "religion" means.

Quote:

... which is all the more reason to be wary of treating environmentalist views as the only acceptable views.

Nobody here is doing that. Stop stuffing up that straw man.

Please, you've embarrassed yourself enough already. Just shut up and go away. I'm not saying that to censor you, I'm saying that because it's pretty pathetic and I don't want to watch this go on anymore.

In the Ehrlich-Simmon bet, Paul Ehrlich made a lot of claims under the banner of science. He also saw physical resources as zero-sum, economics as zero-sum, and humans as consumption machines (instead of producers). He bet Simon back then that the prices of all sorts of key minerals/metals would rise over the coming decade (he saw increasing population as breeding scarcity, whereas Simon saw it as breeding abundance.) Simon won the bet -- the world did not collapse into scarcity as a result of population increases, and in fact prices dropped significantly. Gates does a good job of exploring the issues. Environmentalism has a remarkable track record of being wrong about a lot of things, and it would terrible for the world to just snuff out or marginalize dissent from environmentalist doctrine.

There is also the issue of externalities associated with resources production. Tar sand oil and natural gas from fracked wells have push fossil fuel prices down. They are also associated with higher environmental costs than other methods of production. Do we see those costs in the market price? I don't think so.

Anyway, the outcome of a single run of the Ehrlich-Simon bet doesn't say much about "Environmentalism has a remarkable track record of being wrong about a lot of things". It's not very relevant to this thread, but do you have other examples?

It's sad that you think funding scientific research is the equivalent of funding partisan political lobbying and propaganda.

It's even sadder that 99% of the people who read this site can't see that the AGW movement *IS* political propaganda and nothing more.

At no point have the "deniers" ever flat out said the climate isn't changing. To do so would be foolish because clearly it is, but that's where things stop. "Deniers" are denying something entirely different - that man is the sole cause of the entire disaster. Nothing has yet proven this to be the case, but ya'll are acting as though it's been proven beyond a shadow of all doubt.

Considering how much you guys hate religion, you sure don't seem to mind acting exactly like one.

Wheels, are you talking to me? You quoted "anecdote" as though I said something about anecdote, but I didn't. Did you mean to say that the Ehrlich-Simon bet is anecdote, a "singular" of data as you said, and thus not compelling scientific evidence?

The Ehrlich-Simon bet is an example of recurring and well-understood mechanisms -- the power of free people to create abundance, the ways in which humans find more efficient methods of extracting or using resources, the ways in which humans find substitutes for scarce resources, the fact that shortages are characteristic of command economies/socialism, not free economies (see Venezuela's inevitable and mundanely predictable shortages for example -- "hey let's impose price controls...oh no, there's a shortage now, how did that happen?" Jesus.)

The Ehrlich-Simon bet is not a standalone piece of evidence -- it's just an illustration that stands on 150+ years of economic theory and research. Environmentalism is empirically and demonstrably false in many of its core assumptions about human nature and resources. It's strange, but hardcore environmentalists seem to have imported the Christian concept of Original Sin -- they clearly see humans as inherently bad, destructive, unworthy, as sinners needing to repent. Any claim of human destructiveness vis a vis the earth is powerfully appealing to them, and they will likely be biased in favor of accepting it as true. (Libertarians like me are likely to be biased against believing such claims are true, which is why I get into so many arguments with libertarians and conservatives about AGW -- I haven't actually been a skeptic since 2005 when the corrected satellite data came in, although the pause gives me pause...I don't know enough about climate science to be on firm ground.

I'm a social psychologist, and we'll have more data soon on the structure of environmentalist attitudes toward humanity, and whether environmentalism functions as religion at an emotional/psychological level (I think a few people are working on this.) My secular philosopher side will be disappointed if that's the case, since it might imply that even ostensibly secular people need a religion, and that true secularism might be out of reach for most people. There are lots of philosophical and anecdotal, everyday indications that environmentalism is a religion, which is all the more reason to be wary of treating environmentalist views as the only acceptable views.

I simply do not understand your argument. Is this it?

The Ehrlich-Simon bet was lost by an environmentalistAll environmentalists are just like religious fundamentalistsTherefore all environmentalists are the sameTherefore all environmentalists are wrong about economics

Scientists do climate researchEnvironmentalists agree with the output of climate researchTherefore scientists are environmentalistsTherefore since environmentalists are wrong about economics, scientists are wrong about economics

Climate change has economic implications Therefore since scientists are wrong about economics they are wrong about climate changeQ.E.D.

I really hope, for the sake of your academic career, that you see the problems with this.

I dont find it surprising that rich people who make their living from fossil fuels and related businesses would be funding think tanks to claim climate science is flawed

That alone doesnt mean its not flawed however. This seems to be a leap of logic too many are making in relation to this "discovery" even though it ought to have been pretty much obvious and certainly not news worthy

In fact my first thought when I saw this was "have they really got not actual science to publish that they have to state such obvious things to try and keep the paranoid ticking over.

At the other end of the spectrum I am also sure that there are just as many pro AGW think tanks funded by equally rich people claiming that climate science is an irrefuteable religion that is above question and that should be followed blindly with all claims believed in their entireity

Also not exactly a newsworthy discover, nor anything less than flippin obvious

I would also go as far as to suspect that if you followed the money trail from the two extremes of this rather lucrative business you would find many people showing up on the funding list of both the pro and anti AGW camps as the real money to be made here is in keeping the arguement "undecided" for as long as possible so that both ends of the climate spectrum and all points in between can amass small fortunes

The situation as I see it personally though is this

Climate science is severely flawed. Even the people (genuinely) doing the research openly (if you search for it) admit that we have only recently started to study some of the most impactive aspects of our ecosystem due to recent technology and still know barely nothing about it despite them being MASSIVE driving forces. These being several aspects of the sun and its cycles as well as deep oceanographic tides, patterns and temperatures as well as the atmospheric vents above the seas.

Add to those aspects of climate sceince the fact that the cycles those things follow are numerous and many of them have overlapping time scales lasting from years through decades and all the way up to millenia meaning it will actually be in about 1 million years when we "might" begin to have the ability to ACURATELY model our ecosystem to any degree where predicting what might happen in 10 years never mind 100 years would be possible

But that also doesnt mean that mankind has NO impact on our ecology. Obviously we do while we chop down trees, dam rivers and pollute

The problem though is this. Many of those could actually be fixed quite easily. ANY company ANYWHERW in the world chopping down trees could easily be required to plant two new ones. Therefore the "problem" would vanish but the practice could carry on supplying our needs

That admittedly is just one part of the whole, but highlights that from the financial perspective, and the reason many people are opposed to "legislation" is that problems caused by companies are predominantly "tackled" by taxing individuals which at face value seems insane even though most people dont seem to have realised that yet

Thing here is they will mostly be taking money from both sides of the coin so its in their interest to never have a definitive solution.

And whilst there isnt any reliable or conclusive science on either side it leaves them free to pad out their bank accounts from both sides whilst also raising endless amounts of extra taxes to waste on anything but green projects along the way meaning they are not only fleecing the pro and anti AGW lobbyist groups but also the people who vote to elect them too

Career politicians have no morals, ideology nor values. They do what is best for them and what secures THEM the best future

Whether something that is best for the voters, one side of an arguement or the other is decided on who pays the most or failing that on how many sides it can be used to fleece money out of

If any government had any REAL interest in safeguarding the planet ALL new houses the world over would be being built with geothermal water heating and solar panel roofs. And yet this isnt compulsory anywhere as far as I know

Even government subsidies still make these things the shopping list of the fairly wealthy who are the people who need them least

And again barely anyone seems to notice these things

A quite possible reason for oh so green governments NOT doing this would probably be that they have shares in power companies, "donations" (read kick backs) or lobbying from power companies or a background in the power industry

But dont confuse the power industry with anti AGW, because they would just be opposed to people getting CHEAP energy, not green energy and thats why they might support government subsidies to them to build solar power arrays but try to actively block it being a requirement in new homes as theres no profit in that for them which the politicians also realise hence it not being a government policy nor plan

So basically BOTH sides of this discussion are lacking in genuine scientific evidence whilst actually making a LOT more money while the debate is kept up in the air than they would if it was decided one way or the other

And as many companies funding lobbying and think tanks have business interests on both sides of the fence too their only interest is in keeping both sides active and both groups of businesses being relevant and profit producing rather than just one group or the other

The public are irrelevant other than being the groups swaying back and forth as each pro or anti new story is spoon fed via the media, but never really being more than sheep following a path rather than trailblazing it

When too much pro agw sway is attained a breaking discovery that discounts AGW is leaked, if too few people are following the pro AGW religion some equally unfounded claim is released to drum up more support. The machine is geared up to maintain equilibrium rather than to tip the balance either way because the science is either not there yet or will give answers that negate one or even both sides to some extent

Nobody denies that our climate is changing. But its done that since forever, We dont even know if we have completed one whole cycle of our weather pattern yet but it is such a good way to try and exert control over other countries without actually going to war whilst also giving governments carte blanche to invent endless new taxes to keep the middle and lower classes subdued by curtailing their influence in a given society as the ONLY real power in an economic structure is exerted through spending.

if we as a planet REALLY wanted to make a marked impact on global warming it would be to eradicate termite mounds the world over and kill off any other methane producing creatures which would have the added benefit of not crippling the majority of peoples spending power but would probably give some economies a boost whilst making a MUCH bigger impact on alleged greenhouse gases and global warming than if all fossil fuels where completely banned

And yet, governments ignore methane production except for carbon credit schemes (green business opportunities) which should really have people asking why a low cost high impact route isnt being explored

My guess is that you cant tax termites, they also dont have any PLCs or limited companies you can own or own shares in, they dont make donations to any political parties and there isnt an anti termite lobby to compete with in terms of donation size otherwise I suspect governments the world over would be right on it

Governments SHOULD be making companies be green or else the world over. Governments SHOULD be blocking imports from non green companies and non green countries the world over

And by green I mean purely in terms of ACTUAL science in areas of pollution, deforestation, huge dams (theyre a BAD thing btw, not a good thing all you eco warriors should wake up and realise)

But all of those none green companies make a LOT of money, they make a LOT of donations and they keep economies afloat and thats the real reason they wont tackle the problems that CAN be tackled

Instead they dither around with unproven nonsense that might end up being ficticious but appearing to almost seeming like maybe they might be about to do something real other than introducing new stealth taxes that penalise the customers but rarely the companies profits

Because if instead they just focused on what is proven for now and tackled that they could make a HUGE difference, But would jeapordise their streams of backhanders, party funding streams, investment tips, the return from their stock portfolios, their highly paid chairmanships or jobs when leaving politics and so on and so forth

Voters, the planet or even the country they are supposed to represent dont really feature much in a modern politicians priorities and its time people realised this and stopped being distracted by irrelevant pursuits like the AGW and AIDS religions. These are purely to give people something "bigger" to focus on rather than realising that its modern politics that is the ONLY thing that needs to be changed

And if you understood how the carbon cycle works at all, you'd know that cow flatulence does not contribute to CO2 emissions in a meaningful way. For that matter, it's been explained in this thread already. What's important isn't how much, but where it was before.

The CO2 emitted by cows comes from plants, which they eat. The plants get it from the CO2 in the air. So taking the carbon out of the air and putting it back has makes no long term change to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years, reintroducing carbon to the system. This is pretty basis physics, something should be deduced by anyone with an elementary school level understanding of science.

I don't say that cows emit large or any amounts of CO2. I'm saying that CO2 has miniscule impact on climate change and main culprits are methane and ammonia, both made by cows in big amounts. By farting.

And if you understood how the carbon cycle works at all, you'd know that cow flatulence does not contribute to CO2 emissions in a meaningful way. For that matter, it's been explained in this thread already. What's important isn't how much, but where it was before.

The CO2 emitted by cows comes from plants, which they eat. The plants get it from the CO2 in the air. So taking the carbon out of the air and putting it back has makes no long term change to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. However, burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years, reintroducing carbon to the system. This is pretty basis physics, something should be deduced by anyone with an elementary school level understanding of science.

I don't say that cows emit large or any amounts of CO2. I'm saying that CO2 has miniscule impact on climate change and main culprits are methane and ammonia, both made by cows in big amounts. By farting.

Yes, and you also said earlier that man does not have any significant impact on the climate, but, (as I asked you earlier), who the hell do you think raises the cows in the first place?

If you can't understand logic as trivially simple as that, how do you feel qualified to comment on anything at all to do with actual science?

The Problem from cows first off wouldnt be CO2, it would be methane (same as with termites et al) which is a MUCH worse greenhouse gas than CO2

As for the carbon cycle thing and the claims that burning fossil fuels releases carbon not in our natural carbon cycle for a moment

What constitutes fossil fuel is allegedly according to science dead plants and animals from looooooooong ago

So at some point where all life on earth obviously didnt die ALL of that carbon was infact in our carbon cycle. As the earth is a closed system and we dont (last time I checked) have streams of extra carbon leaking into the planet from space then ALL carbon both in the existing mechanism as well as ALL carbon in oil would have been at one point in the carbon cycle together as no species has (as far as I know) burtn fossil fuels in the past so the carbon cycle mechanism can ONLY have been a reductive system where carbon has almost since the birth of the planet been being removed as it was compacted into what is now oil deposits we are using now

The carbon isnt some magical thing that has always been underground and we are just now digging up. And nor are there huge non organic carbon deposits that routinely just pop up to the surface to replace carbon that gets buried with each years dead foliage and animals

So ALL the carbon released now is carbon previous subtracted from the whole and never re released back into the cycle

The carbon in oil deposits didnt magically beam into them from space completely bypassing the ecosystem. It was carbon FROM our ecosystem that was removed year after year.

And it does also seem that the times when this carbon was still in the ecosystem is the time when we had species explosions and an ecosystem that was both varied and huge. Not one that died off due to having so much carbon in the cabon cycle

The modern carbon cycle mechanism might not have the capacity to hold so much carbon now, and that is what should be being addressed IMO. Because before the carbon was removed the planet had a LOT more vegetation as well as the voracity of animals

Instead we have countries like India and china who have HUGE river dam projects that WILL without doubt cause huge enviromental problems and turn massive areas of land into deserts along with influencing the water table and the ecosystem as a whole

Those are problems that have actual facts and science to back them up BUT which barely anyone seems aware of or particularly bothered about.

But they will make a LOT of money for a lot of people and governments and they can be "claimed" to be green projects. So whats not to like?

And I am sure when most of bangladesh has no water once its main river is diverted no mention of it being due to indias hydro electric dam building project will be mentioned because you cant say anything negative against the church of the AGW now can you.......

Gee...a billion dollars...really? You guys crack me up. 1st to insist that this lie is still viable after all that we have seen, is ludicrous and insulting in the extreme. Over and over we have found manipulation and outright lies on the part of the climate extremists.What's the most bizarre is that the data is available for anyone to look up, and it proves conclusively that AGW is nothing but a hoax.How long do you people think that you can continue to beat this dead horse?All anyone has to do is look at the people who are standing against this religion, and one can plainly see that those people are not well funded. We are individuals who simply report the facts and are excoriated by a machine that makes a billion dollars look like chicken feed.It's moot though. This religion is rapidly losing ground, and as we move farther and farther from the hysterical predictions of its High Priests, the bleating of the sheep who follow them and beg for their penance will be drowned out and crushed by the reality of their folly.Enjoy your time while you can. Your days are numbered.

Gee...a billion dollars...really? You guys crack me up. 1st to insist that this lie is still viable after all that we have seen, is ludicrous and insulting in the extreme. Over and over we have found manipulation and outright lies on the part of the climate extremists.What's the most bizarre is that the data is available for anyone to look up, and it proves conclusively that AGW is nothing but a hoax.How long do you people think that you can continue to beat this dead horse?All anyone has to do is look at the people who are standing against this religion, and one can plainly see that those people are not well funded. We are individuals who simply report the facts and are excoriated by a machine that makes a billion dollars look like chicken feed.It's moot though. This religion is rapidly losing ground, and as we move farther and farther from the hysterical predictions of its High Priests, the bleating of the sheep who follow them and beg for their penance will be drowned out and crushed by the reality of their folly.Enjoy your time while you can. Your days are numbered.

It's sad that you think funding scientific research is the equivalent of funding partisan political lobbying and propaganda.

It's even sadder that 99% of the people who read this site can't see that the AGW movement *IS* political propaganda and nothing more.

At no point have the "deniers" ever flat out said the climate isn't changing. To do so would be foolish because clearly it is, but that's where things stop. "Deniers" are denying something entirely different - that man is the sole cause of the entire disaster. Nothing has yet proven this to be the case, but ya'll are acting as though it's been proven beyond a shadow of all doubt.

Considering how much you guys hate religion, you sure don't seem to mind acting exactly like one.

Well, "Deniers" are busy denying something that was "no point" ... "ever flat out said." Human's output of CO2 and it rapid accumulation due to its reasonably long half-life is the significant factor but not the only factor. Which is why methane isn't touted as the largest problem. But it is and has been recognised as a problem by the pro-AGW scientists.

What part of AGW are you dismissive of?

That CO2 is a GHG?

That CO2 is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere [primarily] from burning fossil fuels?

That the CO2 isotopes fall into the range of isotopes expected from burning fossil fuels?

That the energy radiating from earth is less than what it is receiving from the sun?

That methane doesn't have its name in top billing because it has a much shorter half-life than CO2 despite its established greater potency?

That the volume of CO2 is not able to store the quantity of heat to drive temperatures up?

If you have something concrete to throw at AGW by all means throw it! I'm getting tired of watching scientists and concerned individuals holding their arms out to catch the ball that is never thrown. It is always vagarities or tangents that don't confront the central points. [and rarely turn out to be accurate throws.]

I dont find it surprising that rich people who make their living from fossil fuels and related businesses would be funding think tanks to claim climate science is flawed

That alone doesnt mean its not flawed however. This seems to be a leap of logic too many are making in relation to this "discovery" even though it ought to have been pretty much obvious and certainly not news worthy

<snip>Career politicians have no morals, ideology nor values. They do what is best for them and what secures THEM the best future

<snip>

If the problem is pro-AGW is mostly from pollies why are they typically so reluctant to do anything that would limit the negative effects of AGW on our economies? The western countries and probably many others had no trouble spending billions to convert us into terrorist alert states, but meander around doing any constructive activity that would significantly limit the volume of GHGs tossed into the atmosphere. Billions spent on preventing asylum seekers (economic or political) entrance. Billions spent on research into climate effects but money and direction spent on preventing the worst of AGW is extremely reluctant, even by token pro-AGW parties.

Quote:

[snip]So ALL the carbon released now is carbon previous subtracted from the whole and never re released back into the cycle

The carbon in oil deposits didnt magically beam into them from space completely bypassing the ecosystem. It was carbon FROM our ecosystem that was removed year after year.

And it does also seem that the times when this carbon was still in the ecosystem is the time when we had species explosions and an ecosystem that was both varied and huge. Not one that died off due to having so much carbon in the cabon cycle[snip]

No, it was part of a much larger process that disperses *slowly* the carbon and other elements throughout the planet.

If the volume of carbon that is being released in addition to the carbon currently in the cycle at a much slower rate, CO2 would not be a problem. My own speculation put the timeframe at around 800 - 2000 years for the same volume but it is rectally acquired.

It's even sadder that 99% of the people who read this site can't see that the AGW movement *IS* political propaganda and nothing more.

At no point have the "deniers" ever flat out said the climate isn't changing. To do so would be foolish because clearly it is, but that's where things stop. "Deniers" are denying something entirely different - that man is the sole cause of the entire disaster. Nothing has yet proven this to be the case, but ya'll are acting as though it's been proven beyond a shadow of all doubt.

Considering how much you guys hate religion, you sure don't seem to mind acting exactly like one.

Well, "Deniers" are busy denying something that was "no point" ... "ever flat out said." Human's output of CO2 and it rapid accumulation due to its reasonably long half-life is the significant factor but not the only factor. Which is why methane isn't touted as the largest problem. But it is and has been recognised as a problem by the pro-AGW scientists.

What part of AGW are you dismissive of?

That CO2 is a GHG?

That CO2 is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere [primarily] from burning fossil fuels?

That the CO2 isotopes fall into the range of isotopes expected from burning fossil fuels?

That the energy radiating from earth is less than what it is receiving from the sun?

That methane doesn't have its name in top billing because it has a much shorter half-life than CO2 despite its established greater potency?

That the volume of CO2 is not able to store the quantity of heat to drive temperatures up?

If you have something concrete to throw at AGW by all means throw it! I'm getting tired of watching scientists and concerned individuals holding their arms out to catch the ball that is never thrown. It is always vagarities or tangents that don't confront the central points. [and rarely turn out to be accurate throws.]

5b. That in any case, the reason that all that methane has a short half-life is because it decomposes into CO2, anyways?

The problem is that the pro AGW camp itself hasnt actually "proven" a need for concern in the first place

And as its impossible to disprove a negative constantly bleating "prove us wrong" when you havent anything to prove youre right is the antipathy of science

The climatologists themselves state they dont understand very much about clouds and how they interact with the ecosystem, they admit they havent been able to study the sun long enough to be able to match its cycles properly to those of the ecosystem, they openly admit that they have only recently been able to study oceanic patterns and they have only recently been aware that there are huge vents that vent excess heat out into space

All of which have only recently been open for any decent form of study and the people studying them arent shy about stating how new the studying is and that more funding and research is needed before they begin to understand their cycles, cycle legnths and how they interact with the rest of the ecosystem

So, climate "science" without being able to fundamentally understand what are very major aspects of the ecosystem is a bit like trying to predict what will happen if you mix two colours together having been blind from birth

I havent seen ANY so called deniers claiming categorically that mankind definitely doesnt have any impact on the ecosystem. Mostly just that the climate religion is asking for belief based on faith and hypothesis despite huge gaping holes in their understanding and most of their previous predicitions being wrong by huge amounts

And lets not forget that many of the "deniers" are in their own right climatologists, some of which are/were very reknowned scientists until they held a view that didnt match with the politically correct one which is an increasing problem in science across many fields where not holding the political side of the topic will see you with no funding, unable to get published and ostracised in the scientific community which has even happened to at least one noble prize winner I am aware of

This is a LOT more like a religion than many seem to realise, and an almost identical scenario is with holocaust "deniers" most of whom didnt "deny" but simply didnt agree the figures were acurate. But with religious vehemence it was claimed that just questioning such a thing was wrong and in many countries actually illegal

But even with the holocaust many of the deniers were actually correct and the alleged "unquestionably acurate" number ended up being reduced several times till it was lower than many of the jailed deniers had actually thought it might be. Reduced by almost 35% eventually as I recall

People and especially pro AGW supporters talk a lot about "big oil" throwing its money around. But forget that a very sizeable chunk of research is done with funding from governments many of whom rely heavily on using the AGW scaremongering to use as justification for ever increasing taxes

So they have a direct ability to decide which research gets funded which in turn is decided based upon not just what is being researched but also on what they "expect" to find. Meaning that the general tone of "findings" is and always has been easily to change to suit a political agenda by making sure that funding is only given to researchers with the "correct" political viewpoints

To claim that only one side of this massive financial machine has the ability, desire or funding to influence the findings is very naive or just deliberately ignorant and again just resembles a religion where common sense is thrown away in favour of blind belief in a cause that is viewed as being "proven" when it isnt

Gee...a billion dollars...really? You guys crack me up. 1st to insist that this lie is still viable after all that we have seen, is ludicrous and insulting in the extreme. Over and over we have found manipulation and outright lies on the part of the climate extremists.What's the most bizarre is that the data is available for anyone to look up, and it proves conclusively that AGW is nothing but a hoax.How long do you people think that you can continue to beat this dead horse?All anyone has to do is look at the people who are standing against this religion, and one can plainly see that those people are not well funded. We are individuals who simply report the facts and are excoriated by a machine that makes a billion dollars look like chicken feed.It's moot though. This religion is rapidly losing ground, and as we move farther and farther from the hysterical predictions of its High Priests, the bleating of the sheep who follow them and beg for their penance will be drowned out and crushed by the reality of their folly.Enjoy your time while you can. Your days are numbered.

Yeah, hilarity continues. Like I need to waste my time making an argument. New flash moron, this is not about opinion. It's about the facts. Besides, you have your religion, and nothing anyone says or writes will change your religion. No,...you just keep "believing" what you want to believe. That's not science. Meanwhile, we'll just keep laughing at your dumb ass.

No, it was part of a much larger process that disperses *slowly* the carbon and other elements throughout the planet.

If the volume of carbon that is being released in addition to the carbon currently in the cycle at a much slower rate, CO2 would not be a problem. My own speculation put the timeframe at around 800 - 2000 years for the same volume but it is rectally acquired

Quote:

What much larger process?

For that to be true there would need to be some other mechanism similar to fossil fuel burning that introduces HUGE amounts of carbon (equivalent amounts to that being trapped in soon to be oil deposits) each year to maintain the balance

So youre saying there is a mechanism that releases previously unnavailable billions of gigatons of carbon into what is a closed system each year that merely maintained the balance caused by the carbon being lost in biomatter that was being covered over to eventually turn into oil?

That mechanism must surely still be in existence now though and cant be the sea because the amount of water on the planet is also a constant (closed system again)

So where exactly was this carbon being "released at a slower rate" from exactly?

And my original point was to do with the removal of carbon that was in the biomatter that is now oil, ALL of that carbon was in the ecosystem before being oil. And the planet didnt miraculously become a ball of sand bereft of life

This carbon from "fossil" (Dead animal and plant) fuels isnt just being put into the ecosystem, Its being put BACK into the same ecosystem it came out of.

And despite what has been claimed on here many many times CO2 isnt even close to being the biggest greenhouse gas or climate driving gas

The head and shoulders biggest one is yet another one that scientists openly admit they are only just beginning to understand and its quite simply clouds

They cant even agree on whether a rise in temperature could mean more cloud cover and a self regulating influence or not.

But in perhaps 20-30 years they "should" with modern satelites have a fairly decent idea of how cloud cover is both driven by and drives the ecosystem. But lets not let a lack of fundamental understanding detract from the all knowing climate models (that cant seem to predict anything)

Gee...a billion dollars...really? You guys crack me up. 1st to insist that this lie is still viable after all that we have seen, is ludicrous and insulting in the extreme. Over and over we have found manipulation and outright lies on the part of the climate extremists.What's the most bizarre is that the data is available for anyone to look up, and it proves conclusively that AGW is nothing but a hoax.How long do you people think that you can continue to beat this dead horse?All anyone has to do is look at the people who are standing against this religion, and one can plainly see that those people are not well funded. We are individuals who simply report the facts and are excoriated by a machine that makes a billion dollars look like chicken feed.It's moot though. This religion is rapidly losing ground, and as we move farther and farther from the hysterical predictions of its High Priests, the bleating of the sheep who follow them and beg for their penance will be drowned out and crushed by the reality of their folly.Enjoy your time while you can. Your days are numbered.

Yeah, hilarity continues. Like I need to waste my time making an argument. New flash moron, this is not about opinion. It's about the facts. Besides, you have your religion, and nothing anyone says or writes will change your religion. No,...you just keep "believing" what you want to believe. That's not science. Meanwhile, we'll just keep laughing at your dumb ass.

Have a nice life.

I assume that the "Have a nice life." crack was your way of making a tactical retreat because you can't provide any evidence, but just in case you are still listening:

You have the facts vs. religion sides exactly backward. This thread has included numerous links to facts carefully researched by many different experts which offer converging lines of evidence strongly supporting AGW. It is your "opinion" that they are wrong, but when 97% of the people who actually know what they are talking about have all reached the same conclusion, you had better be able to provide a bunch of well-documented, repeatable scientific evidence to prove they are wrong.

And if you can't, then don't be surprised if your "opinions" are dismissed as belonging to a buffoon and a troll.

People and especially pro AGW supporters talk a lot about "big oil" throwing its money around. But forget that a very sizeable chunk of research is done with funding from governments many of whom rely heavily on using the AGW scaremongering to use as justification for ever increasing taxes

So they have a direct ability to decide which research gets funded which in turn is decided based upon not just what is being researched but also on what they "expect" to find. Meaning that the general tone of "findings" is and always has been easily to change to suit a political agenda by making sure that funding is only given to researchers with the "correct" political viewpoints

To claim that only one side of this massive financial machine has the ability, desire or funding to influence the findings is very naive or just deliberately ignorant and again just resembles a religion where common sense is thrown away in favour of blind belief in a cause that is viewed as being "proven" when it isnt

Yup, being pro AGW was always a fast track to career success during the GWB administration, and we all know how much the current congress loves to fund scientific research, especially if it will annoy big business.

Deniers are just another variety of conservative like creationists. Why worry about the environment when the End Times are near? Let's ignore al the science that doesn't support our short vision of the future 'cuz' dere ain't no future to worry 'bout.